My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

That's my response. EVERY discussion of the philosophy of religion on Sciforums seems to turn into Jan Ardena playing the same game and everyone else fluttering around Jan like moths around a flame. Despite threads continuing on for hundreds of pages and thousands of posts, EVERYTHING JUST GOES AROUND IN CIRCLES. Sooner or later every point repeats.

It's just stupid.

Sadly, I'm very interested in the philosophy of religion and religious epistemology. But it's becoming impossible to discuss that subject intelligently on Sciforums. (Just as it's grown impossible to discuss ethics, politics or world events.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My recommendation would be to submit a report if a user is behaving in a way that is dishonest, vexatious, or otherwise maliciously prohibiting the advancement of discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ive discussed a bit wit Jan an i enjoyed it... when i tired of it i stopped an rarely bother to read any of his posts... but i do enjoy readin the posts to Jan by those such as Baldee an Sarkus... etc... as they shine a bright light on what it means to be a soldier for God as demonstrated by Jan.!!!

Its kinda hit an miss but administraton does on occasion get rid of posters that people complain about... but does that fix Sciforums to your's an others desires... hmmm... not that ive noticed but for sure the post count goes down an the place becomes more dull.!!!

I like Sciforums an dont want people baned cause i dont like ther views/postin style... i ether discuss wit 'em or ignore 'em... no prollem.!!!

Mine are among the most intelligent posts at Sciforums an i certanly dont expect the majority to live up to that standard... i just except 'em as flawed fellow humans an enjoy the ride.!!!

 

Fair enough.
In future, don't tell me I can't define atheist perspective, from my own point of view. Just like you define theist from yours.

Arguments for or against the existence of God, are ultimately irrelevant.
They may sway the person one way or the other, but the propensity to believe, or not believe, comes from the person. Hence the reason for the meanings of the definitions.

You avoid them, or explain them away.
Then you come with the ''it's already been explained to you on numerous occasions'', so we don't have to explain them again.
There are points that you haven't addressed properly, just within this dialogue, let alone others. Yet you will use that line again at some point, as though yours, or Baldeee's word is the final authority.

Good point James. I dare say there is a lesson in there for you somewhere.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Salt is finer, and it could well have an effect on the walls of the mouth, especially if the person has abrasions, cuts, or mouth ulcers.
There are ways of telling the difference beside taste.

You wouldn't be forced to, as no test would definitively show that taste exists,, you would have to choose to accept it.
But I dare say some would not make that choice, and would choose to carry on with the dictates of their own comprehension, and other like-minds.

The question is; why would I want to prove God.
There's no point trying to prove God to someone who disbelieves.
Plus not proving God makes no difference to anything.

That's great. But it's not the question I asked.

If you don't want me to not tell you what I think atheism is, then don't proceed to tell me what theism is.

And a skyscraper is tall, in relation to our height.
But the skyscraper does not have a property called ''tall''.

The atheist is. I agree.

Nothing you say leads me to believe you were theist.
When I ask you about your theism, such as what your relationship with God entailed, you tell me to mind my own business.
But if you ever want to discuss it, I'm all ears.

jan.

 

I just think that is incredibly harsh.

jan.

 

My intention is not to hold up threads.
The truth is that I have points that are raised about atheists, and atheism, which do not get addressed.
I am told that it is not my place to tell atheists what their position means. That I must accept what they say about themselves as factual, and as such they reserve the right to treat me as though I am a troll, because I keeping bringing up points they refuse to acknowledge or answer.

All the while they can tell me what their version of theist is. They can be as flippant, rude, and disrespectful as they like, and don't have to answer for it at all.
I understand this site is predominantly atheist. and such I shouldn't expect much cooperation unless I tow the line.

But Sciforums is supposed to be an intelligent community. I would have thought there would enthusiasm in discussing the flaws in modern atheisms. God knows there's been enough enthusiasm on the flaws of theistic religion and theism.

jan.

 

That was what he thought.

That wasn't what said.

IOW it must suit you. That's not objective, as you can set the the bar how you like.

I can't imagine you as a former believer as nothing you have said convinces me of such. Everything points to disbelief, as defined.

You're right, I'm not interested in what I see as your self-obsession. At least not before we establish where my observations of atheism are addressed.
Otherwise it just comes across as evasion.

And I have a lot of sympathy for non-believers, for pretty much the same reasons.

In a way, you validate my point.

So your past experience characterises the reality of theism, and there is nothing to discuss outside of that?

That's an atheist perspective, not a theist one.
People with taste don't consider taste to be real or false, we just know.
Don't say you've already addressed this, because I don't think you have.

But anyone who know what is meant by ''diety'' could have worked that out right from the get go.
Which is why atheist approval of what is atheism is not necessary. Unless they refer to an idealised definition.

Well?

I'm upset with the hypocrisy, if I'm upset at all.

I'm very clear about what I am discussing. Perhaps a little too clear, if attitudes are anything to go by.

While I do believe that God exists, I've not actually implied that God exists, in any of the definitions. I don't need to.
It seems everything definition an atheist have of themselves, implies God already exists. Even the label itself, both modern, and ancient. It seems you can't get away from it. That's probably why thinking atheists generally aren't satisfied with the label ''atheist'', because it implies God exists, but they either reject, or deny. I understand that they don't want to be labelled as people who deny, or reject God, but it is what it is.

jan.

 

I'm talking about atheists, and atheism.
You mean shut up and go along with the illusion of what thinking atheists think atheist is. Even if there are glaring holes in their understanding? Isn't this supposed to be the intelligent community?

jan.

 

God bless you, Cluelusshusband. Don't ever change.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And is it me or has your spellin improved sumwhat?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Intention or otherwise, it is what you do.

No, you raise semantic points about how the person who describes themself as atheist isn't one in accordance with the original meaning. Or some other line of arguing that means you can avoid actually addressing what the person is saying about themself. As has been pointed out, you argue against the label, not the person's actual position, not what they actually say.

It is not your place to tell the atheist what their position means to them. You can of course explain to them the original meaning, but that should really just be as a point of interest, unless you want to raise the matter of etymology and usage within the linguistics forum? But you merely hear the word "atheist" and then argue against that instead of what the person is telling you about their position. If you think that their position is not quite what you understand an "atheist" to be then okay, explain that, but then continue discussing with what the person's actual position is.
Instead you sidetrack the issue to one of semantics.

Noone expects you to take what they say as being reality, only that it is what they say about themselves. If you don't have the same understanding as them of the terms they use, okay, but the point to argue then is what they actually say about the position they hold, not the labels they use to describe those positions. The position they hold is the position behind the label they use - and all too frequently you only argue the label.
But whether what they say, their interpretation, matches the reality of their experience, sure, open to debate, just as it is and should be for everyone.

No, because you continue to argue only the label, not from the position beneath the label that they actually hold.
This is explained to you yet you continue to do it. And that is trollish behaviour on your part.

And all the while you can explain what the term means to you, so that they can try to understand the meaning you apply to the term. But key is that they eventually argue against your actual position, not continually just the position they might understand the label to imply. This should be the case for everyone.
If you do not think it happening - point it out. Explain your actual position. That way fruitful discussion might actually occur.

Call it out when it happens. Report it. This should be the case for everyone.

Stop playing the victim, Jan. You do yourself no favours.

Then raise the issue but do so in a manner that encourages actual discussion, rather than your tactic of simply trying to score points.
But if you continue to argue in a patronising, elitist, and defensive manner, as you tend to do, then you really should expect nothing in return.



Now, was there a thread in here somewhere we can get back to?

 

^^^
We cannot know whether it is intentional. He could believe he is being honest & sensible.

<>

 

^^^
Not as harsh as you are.
What you say to & about atheists while refusing to listen & heed what they say about themselves. I doubt you could get away with this with any other group of people.

<>

 

God bless you to Sarkus... an to the delight of many im sure... i promise to never ever change

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

An you'r not just imaginin thangs... my spellin has improved... especially the long words after i learned to use spell check

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK. I guess I was not quite as elaborately clear as I intended.
The original definition is (?most?) important to Jan.

The original was atheos which meant without gods. It did not mean without god, singular.
It was 1st used by a group of polytheists to refer to other groups of polytheists with the view that since the gods they believe in do not exist (while our gods do exist, of course) therefore they are without gods.
It was next used to refer to Christians because they believe in a god which does not exist.

Thru the 1700s and 1800s when Christianity was enjoying tremendous popularity despite the increasing prominence of philosophy and science, the word atheist was more commonly used as an ad hominem attack & informally as an insult, etc. It was often thrown at a person without much thought such as with idiot, etc & some profane insults which I will not specify. It may be argued that the origins of this disdainful attitude toward atheists originated from The Holy Bible's advocacy for the killing of infidels.
So, during that time, it either did not have much of a meaning or it was most often used poorly.

The ill treatment of atheists & stupid bigoted misuse of the word led to coining the word agnostic.

At the time of the original meaning, Jan would have been called atheos because he believes in only 1 god & because the god he believes in does not exist.

Welcome to the club, Jan!

<>

 

^^^
You contradict yourself.

<>

 

It's not me that holds up the thread.

It is a fact that God does NOT exist, as far as an atheist is aware. Please point out why this is not the case if you do not agree.
Saying that you do not believe God does not exist, or there is no evidence to support God's existence, is at the very least, the reason why God does not exist.
We both agree (I think) that an atheist is a person who does not believe in God. That IS the actual position.
Everything else boils down to the reasons for holding the atheist (above) position.

I don't do that. I listen to what somebody like yourself would say about the reasons why you are atheist, and look at it in relation to the position of ''atheist'' (a person who does not believe in God/gods). I find some of it superficial, so I state it.

I'm not arguing against anything. I know what an atheist is, and as such there is no argument there. What I bring to the fore, is the superficiality of the reasons you give. IOW I think there are glaring holes in the reasoning of atheists such as yourself, and seek to explore that. Obviously you're not comfortable with it, but there is no disrespect of you the person, or of what you say about your position. I use dictionary definitions purely as a reference, and for mutual understanding. I could just as easily not use them, but then we will get snowed under, discussing what terms mean.

Where do I argue against what a person say's about themselves? I argue with what they regard as 'atheism'.
If were to discuss what it means to be human, and I disagree with your point of view, does it mean I'm arguing about what you say about yourself? This is a discussion forum, that means we come here to discuss what's on the table. If you put a point or argument forward, then it is up for discussion. At least that's the way I see it.

I think it is good that we understand the label itself. This way we can move forward. The alternative is the almost incessant goal-post shifting.

But there are contradictions.
How do you know there is no evidence for God?
What makes you think you need evidence of the type you deem satisfactory, to comprehend God?
You may counter with; ''maybe God doesn't exist, and you've been wrong all along''. Sure, but that's from an atheist perspective.
What else could you say? Especially as there is no God, as far as you're aware.

I don't mind what they say or think about theism, it their prerogative. Just don't try to censor what I say about atheism.
I assume they know what ''theist'' actually means, like I know what ''atheist'' actually means.

No they don't. They say what they like, how they like. They assume what they like, how they like. Fine!
Just don't cry into your beer when I use the same line.

My position is ''theist'' (a person that believes in God). As long as that is not violated, I'm okay. It should be the same with atheists. As long as their position of not believing in God, remains intact. There should be no controversy.

Report it to who? JamesR?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think an underlying issue here, is that I don't need to try and score points.

I think you have that the wrong way round Sakus.

jan.